god didn't create the universe

Originally posted by chickenlover98
well not know what created the big bang is better than believing in an unseeable unknowable and untouchable god. you cant do anything to prove that he exists. at least we have proof of the big bang....

Yes, but what created the partcles responsible for colliding and creating the big bang? I'm not saying an all powerful God did so, but I wouldn't cancel it out. I'm simply saying that I don't know. And, since I don't know, I can't say whether God exists or not, no matter how unbelievable, useeable, unknowable and untouchable he, she, or it is. I'm not saying that I do or don't believe in God either. All I can say for sure is that I just don't know, and I don't think anyone will ever know.

Originally posted by chickenlover98
a debate team would argue otherwise. chance is a random happening. until you can find an algorithim or a way to predict what will happen, anything can be thrown to chance. i am not the one spouting random things trying to disprove a notion almost everyone believes in. you try and prove chance wrong because in this case u sir are the agresser

I throw a dice, before it lands, you say there is a 1 in 6 chance of any face on the dice to show on top. You don't know what is going to show because you do not know all of the variables. However, the dice, if thrown in an absolute controlled way, will always land on the same face. Nature never works off of chance. Nature always works from cause and effect from every moment to moment. The reason the dice seems to be random is because all of the circumstances change every time the dice is thrown. If you could know "everything", you would be able to predict every random or chance event.

Now, prove to me that the universe does not work this way.

Originally posted by Shakyamunison
I throw a dice, before it lands, you say there is a 1 in 6 chance of any face on the dice to show on top. You don't know what is going to show because you do not know all of the variables. However, the dice, if thrown in an absolute controlled way, will always land on the same face. Nature never works off of chance. Nature always works from cause and effect from every moment to moment. The reason the dice seems to be random is because all of the circumstances change every time the dice is thrown. If you could know "everything", you would be able to predict every random or chance event.

Now, prove to me that the universe does not work this way.

ok simple. the world is not a contolled envirnment. we dont know all the variables, we cant. why do we make mistakes?because we dont know everything. that is the reason chance works. the universe doesnt know. it isnt a living organism. it is a place. chance determines what is happening. to say there is no chance acknoledges a higher power, and both you and i disagree on that

Originally posted by chickenlover98
ok simple. the world is not a contolled envirnment. we dont know all the variables, we cant. why do we make mistakes?because we dont know everything. that is the reason chance works. the universe doesnt know. it isnt a living organism. it is a place. chance determines what is happening. to say there is no chance acknoledges a higher power, and both you and i disagree on that

No, I disagree. The universe does not need to know or have a higher power. I stated this in the beginning. The universe works because of laws and cause and effect. The amount of knowledge we have has no barring of how the universe came into being. If you did not understand gravity, you might think that things fell by chance, but they do not.

Originally posted by Shakyamunison
No, I disagree. The universe does not need to know or have a higher power. I stated this in the beginning. The universe works because of laws and cause and effect. The amount of knowledge we have has no barring of how the universe came into being. If you did not understand gravity, you might think that things fell by chance, but they do not.

So where did these laws come from? What made them? Why are physical objects obedient to them?

Originally posted by queeq
And there IS empirical data to both your examples. Your sentence "Only empirical evidence counts"has a) words b) that can be replicated and c) that have defintions i.e. a dictionary for instance.

Neurochemical activity may be defined as scientific mental activity.

but then it's never called that, it's called brain activity.

And that's a fine definition. It's the definition that creates the possibility to test, PLUS by asking the subject who's brain activity is measured one can link it to mental activity

Question: Why I certainly appreciate your rigorous devotion to Science as the main tool for a reliable map of the material world (and it is the best game in town for doing so), why the vehement objection to even the possibility that scientific method could be used, perhaps, to expand a reality map beyond the empirical? Because we'll be misleading ourselves? Heck, even empirical science has to update its database, its reality map, as new information is aquired.

If there is the slightest chance that science could be used to prove the existence of a transcendent level to reality, wouldn't that be better than everyone guessing and relying purely on faith or personal agendas to push God's existence; wouldn't it be an improvement in human understanding to at least try to go about this systematically? Why the objection to even this possibility? Just curious.

Originally posted by Quiero Mota
So where did these laws come from? What made them? Why are physical objects obedient to them?

Nothing made them. They are the product of cause and effect. The universe did not begin at the big bang. The universe is eternal.

Originally posted by Shakyamunison
Nothing made them. They are the product of cause and effect. The universe did not begin at the big bang. The universe is eternal.

Can you back up those assertions?

How do you know the univers is eterntal?

And that really didn't answer my other questions.

Originally posted by Quiero Mota
Can you back up those assertions?

How do you know the univers is eterntal?

And that really didn't answer my other questions.

At the beginning of the big bang, space and time came into existence. Before that, the universe existed, but time did not exist.

I answered your question. Did you have a question that you didn't write? Can you restate your question?

Originally posted by Shakyamunison
At the beginning of the big bang, space and time came into existence. Before that, the universe existed, but time did not exist.

The definition of the Universe is everything that exists; so if there was nothing before the Big Bang, then there was no Universe.

Time existed, there were just no people around to measure it.

Originally posted by Shakyamunison
Can you restate your question?

Originally posted by Quiero Mota
So where did these laws come from?

Originally posted by Quiero Mota
Why are physical objects obedient to them?

Originally posted by Quiero Mota
The definition of the Universe is everything that exists; so if there was nothing before the Big Bang, then there was no Universe.

Time existed, there were just no people around to measure it.

No, time is part of time-space as described in Einstein's theory of relativity. Before the big bang there was no time.

The laws of the universe are products of cause and effect.

The last question is just semantics.

The so-called “laws of nature” are nothing more than a description of how in fact you and other beings do act. They are merely a description of how you act, not a prescription of how you should act, not a power or force which compels or determines your acts. To be valid a law of nature must take into account how in fact you do act, or, if you like, how you choose to act.

Of course, the doctrine of free will might say that it is you who are doing the determining, whereas the doctrine of determinism appears to say that your acts are determined by something apparently outside you. But the confusion is largely caused by your bifurcation of reality into “you” and the “not you.” Really now, just where do you leave off and the rest of the universe begin? Or where does the rest of the universe leave off and you begin? Once you see the so-called “you” and the so-called “nature” as a continuous whole, then you can never again be bothered by such questions as whether it is you who are controlling nature or nature who is controlling you.

Raymond Smullyan (Philosopher and Taoist)

Originally posted by DigiMark007
The so-called “laws of nature” are nothing more than a description of how in fact you and other beings do act. They are merely a description of how you act, not a prescription of how you should act, not a power or force which compels or determines your acts. To be valid a law of nature must take into account how in fact you do act, or, if you like, how you choose to act.

Of course, the doctrine of free will might say that it is you who are doing the determining, whereas the doctrine of determinism appears to say that your acts are determined by something apparently outside you. But the confusion is largely caused by your bifurcation of reality into “you” and the “not you.” Really now, just where do you leave off and the rest of the universe begin? Or where does the rest of the universe leave off and you begin? Once you see the so-called “you” and the so-called “nature” as a continuous whole, then you can never again be bothered by such questions as whether it is you who are controlling nature or nature who is controlling you.

Raymond Smullyan (Philosopher and Taoist)

👆

Originally posted by Mindship
Both a mouse and I will see the same sensory stimulus in looking at a page of words. But only the human mind will see past the ink-on-paper to the meaning of those words. To the mouse, such mental-symbolic meaning does not exist, only the ink-on-paper figures, things which can be empirically measured. But the meanings (derived from intersubjective agreement--that's how we get a useful empirical entity filled with meaning: the dictionary) remain transempirical.

That is BS. Again, it's all about definition. And that's very wel definable, you just mentioned a whole lot of measurable variables.

What;s the definition of spirituality? What kind of measuring would you apply?

Originally posted by queeq
Again, it's all about definition.

What;s the definition of spirituality? What kind of measuring would you apply?

Originally posted by The big EH
i just had an apithany. i was watching dr. cox's commentary on Sunshine. th big bang happnned, god didn't create the universe. if there is a god, he was created by the big bang, born so evovled that he controls aspects of th universe. what do you think?

Anata wa wakarimasu ka.....

Originally posted by InnerRise
Everyone doesn't believe in the Big Bang.

Anata wa wakarimasu ka.....

thank you for stating the BRUTALLY obvious. also most you always right that saying? i think people would get annoyed if i ended every post with "there is a giant purple death squirrel on my porch"

Originally posted by chickenlover98
thank you for stating the BRUTALLY obvious. also most you always right that saying? i think people would get annoyed if i ended every post with "there is a giant purple death squirrel on my porch"

I wouldn't get annoyed; I would enjoy it. 😄

Originally posted by Shakyamunison
I wouldn't get annoyed; I would enjoy it. 😄

in 3 weeks you'd be hitting your head against a brick wall

This is how needless bickering starts. Seeing the environment here, I will leave to not further disrupt the flow of this thread unintentionally.

Sayonara!

ANATA WA WAKARIMASU KA.....